Economic and biological costs of cardiac imaging

Medical imaging market consists of several billion tests per year worldwide. Out of these, at least one third are cardiovascular procedures. Keeping in mind that each test represents a cost, often a risk, and a diagnostic hypothesis, we can agree that every unnecessary and unjustifiable test is one test too many. Small individual costs, risks, and wastes multiplied by billions of examinations per year represent an important population, society and environmental burden. Unfortunately, the appropriateness of cardiac imaging is extra-ordinarily low and there is little awareness in patients and physicians of differential costs, radiological doses, and long term risks of different imaging modalities. For a resting cardiac imaging test, being the average cost (not charges) of an echocardiogram equal to 1 (as a cost comparator), the cost of a CT is 3.1x, of a SPECT 3.27x, of a Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance imaging 5.51x, of a PET 14.03x, and of a right and left heart catheterization 19.96x. For stress cardiac imaging, compared with the treadmill exercise test equal to 1 (as a cost comparator), the cost of stress echocardiography is 2.1x and of a stress SPECT scintigraphy is 5.7x. Biohazards and downstream long-term costs linked to radiation-induced oncogenesis should also be considered. The radiation exposure is absent in echo and magnetic resonance, and corresponds to 500 chest x rays for a sestamibi cardiac stress scan and to 1150 chest x rays for a thallium scan. The corresponding extra-risk in a lifetime of fatal cancer is 1 in 2000 exposed patients for a sestamibi stress and 1 in 1000 for a thallium scan. Increased awareness of economic, biologic, and environmental costs of cardiac imaging will hopefully lead to greater appropriateness, wisdom and prudence from both the prescriber and the practitioner. In this way, the sustainability of cardiac imaging will eventually improve

Interleukin-6 receptor pathways in abdominal aortic aneurysm

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting circulating IL-6 in AAA, and new investigations of the association between a common non-synonymous functional variant (Asp358Ala) in the IL-6R gene (IL6R) and AAA, followed the analysis of the variant both in vitro and in vivo. Inflammation may play a role in the development of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Interleukin-6 (IL-6) signalling through its receptor (IL-6R) is one pathway that could be exploited pharmacologically. We investigated this using a Mendelian randomization approach

Final follow-up of the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening.

BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening were investigated in extended follow-up from the UK Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial. METHODS: A population-based sample of men aged 65-74 years were randomized individually to invitation to ultrasound screening (invited group) or to a control group not offered screening. Patients with an AAA (3·0 cm or larger) detected at screening underwent surveillance and were offered surgery after predefined criteria had been met. Cause-specific mortality data were analysed using Cox regression. RESULTS: Some 67 770 men were enrolled in the study. Over 13 years, there were 224 AAA-related deaths in the invited group and 381 in the control group, a 42 (95 per cent confidence interval 31 to 51) per cent reduction. There was no evidence of effect on other causes of death, but there was an overall reduction in all-cause mortality of 3 (1 to 5) per cent. The degree of benefit seen in earlier years of follow-up was slightly diminished by the occurrence of AAA ruptures in those with an aorta originally screened normal. About half of these ruptures had a baseline aortic diameter in the range 2·5-2·9 cm. It was estimated that 216 men need to be invited to screening to save one death over the next 13 years. CONCLUSION: Screening resulted in a reduction in all-cause mortality, and the benefit in AAA-related mortality continued to accumulate throughout follow-up. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN37381646 (http://www.controlled-trials.com)

Final follow-up of the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening.

BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening were investigated in extended follow-up from the UK Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial. METHODS: A population-based sample of men aged 65-74 years were randomized individually to invitation to ultrasound screening (invited group) or to a control group not offered screening. Patients with an AAA (3·0 cm or larger) detected at screening underwent surveillance and were offered surgery after predefined criteria had been met. Cause-specific mortality data were analysed using Cox regression. RESULTS: Some 67 770 men were enrolled in the study. Over 13 years, there were 224 AAA-related deaths in the invited group and 381 in the control group, a 42 (95 per cent confidence interval 31 to 51) per cent reduction. There was no evidence of effect on other causes of death, but there was an overall reduction in all-cause mortality of 3 (1 to 5) per cent. The degree of benefit seen in earlier years of follow-up was slightly diminished by the occurrence of AAA ruptures in those with an aorta originally screened normal. About half of these ruptures had a baseline aortic diameter in the range 2·5-2·9 cm. It was estimated that 216 men need to be invited to screening to save one death over the next 13 years. CONCLUSION: Screening resulted in a reduction in all-cause mortality, and the benefit in AAA-related mortality continued to accumulate throughout follow-up. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN37381646 (http://www.controlled-trials.com)

The value of screening in siblings of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm

Objectives. This study aimed to determine the incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a large group of siblings of Australian AAA patients to determine if screening in this group is justified. Methods. 1254 siblings of 400 index AAA patients were identified and offered aortic ultrasound screening. An age and sex matched control group was recruited from patients having abdominal CT scans for non-vascular indications. AAA was defined by an infrarenal aortic diameter of greater than or equal to3 cm or a ratio of the infrarenal to suprarenal aortic diameter of greater than or equal to2.0. A ratio of 1.0-1.5 was considered normal, and a ratio of >1.5 t